nikyvee said: and am now waiting for delivery of a Nikon 70-300 VR 2.8. I know, lots of money--$2,350 USD.

Uh, Nikon doesn't make an f/2.8 zoom that reaches 300mm, and if they did it would cost at least twice that (see the 300mm f/2.8 prime lens). I'm guessing you bought the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. I hope they reimburse shipping as well when you return it!

nickv - as for long lenses, You will realize sooner than later, that even OS will not make Your photos better or Your life easier, 500mm is 500mm = at some point You really need additional support. You wrote that Bigma disappointed You because of it's weight and lack of OS - in reality it's one of the most compact lenses with 500mm tag on them (apart from reflex lenses);
as for 70-300 can't wait to see pictures of Your new lens, didn't even know that there is one like that in the nikon lineup :D - I guess You got the 70-300vr f4.5-5.6

As a new D90 owner, as of this past Christmas, I have been eagerly following this thread on lenses for the D90. Since Bella indicated that the main interest is portraits, there has been really no discussion about longer range lenses/telezooms. With my D90 and the 18-105 kit lens, it took only ONE trip to the San Diego Zoo for me to realize that I needed and WANTED a much longer lens. I did spend only $165 and got a very inexpensive Tamron zoom from 70-300mm. It has worked fine, for what I paid for it.

However, another trip to the Zoo and I learned that I WANTED MORE range, so have since tried the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm (I was disappointed with the weight and lack of OS), a Tokina 80-400 (disappointed with the lack of sharpness), and am now waiting for delivery of a Nikon 70-300 VR 2.8. I know, lots of money--$2,350 USD. I hope that gives me what I want as with my D90/DX body, it should be about 450mm on the long end, given the crop factor. I really appreciate the companies willingness to sell a lens on a "tryout" basis. I feel much more comfortable buying a lens, knowing that I can send it back if I don't like it.
Luv my D90,
NickV

I do not agree with most of the posts on this topic but hey in the end you will do what you want. The 50 and 35mm primes are cheap, great quality and superior so therefore a safe purchase you won't regret however, I don't see a large enough difference between the 16-85 and the 18-200 to warrant getting the 16-85 and losing out on the extra 100-200mm. I have used both in addition to the 18-105, 18-55, 55-200, 70-300, 24-120, and the 18-120 VR. I simply try them for months then trade them in the camera district where I live. Lets keep in mind these zoom lenses are not intended for serious work just a simple do everything lens perfect for someone just getting into photography or returning after years away. Each and every lens here is a jack of all trades and not great at one thing.

You say you have 1600 AUD budget for the lens, but how much are you wiling to spend on the camera? I will assume that you have around 2000$ for the set, so here is my recommendation:
D90 + 18-105VR + 70-300VR kit is around 2000$ and you will need two NC and one CPL filter to go. If you have some money left go for monopod, an irreplaceable photography aid. More? Go for SB-600.
EDIT: do not forget a nice LowePro bag

I wouldn't go with an all rounder... this kind of kit lens will do a lot but all it will do will mostly be inferior to what you could get with some specialized lens.. no need to go for a fish eye here or some crazy lens that you can never use.. but I suggest you find what you want to do most and buy a lens that do that well..

You could start with a 50mm f/1.8 this is cheap and would cover portraits very well.

You say you want to use it for "mostly" indoor/outdoor and still/moving subject... that's about everything that exists.. if your boys are your priority, you can use the cheap 50mm f/1.8 for portraits when they are not too close and don't move too fast... Then you could add a 35mm f/1.8 for indoors + normal focal lenght... and a 16-85 would be your more versatile lens...

personally I'd complete the 35mm + 50mm set with a 10-24 ultra wide angle (or tokina 11-16) for your wide angle needs (small rooms, fun effects inside, landscape, etc..) and a 70-200 f/2.8 for outdoors, sports, etc.. That would be more expensive than your current budget.. but you could start off with the 35 + 50 primes and then build your kit based on your needs as your boys grow up..

Also, I believe that person who suggested you the 135mm made a quite interesting suggestion as this lens, even if it's far from being versatile, would get awesome portraits...

Don't sacrifice image quality by getting the 18-200. It's a jack of all trades, master of none. Niko's 16-85 recommendation is a good one and if you go that route and you're doing kids pictures (I've got two, as well), I'd also get one of two lenses (or both if you can swing it):

Sample 1 f/4 1/160s ISO 200Sample 2 f/7.1 1/125s ISO 200 Skip this on a slow connection. There's lots of high frequency stuff here, so it's a big jpg.Sample 3 f/8 1/2000s ISO 320 this is to show flare handling. That's the sun in the lower right, and the shadows on the underside of the bridge still have great contrast, I think.Sample 4 f/2.8 1/320s ISO 200

-the 85 1.8 ~$400. This is probably my favorite portrait lens.

If you want to get both of those primes (if you think you'll be shooting a lot of low light), then you could get the 18-105 for ~$350, which is a great lens but won't last as long as the 16-85 unless you're careful with it, and have enough left over to get the 35 1.8, 85 1.8, and even the 50 1.8 for $120.

I still think the 18-200mm would be the way to go, because the price is similar to the 16-85 and although its a little softer at 100-200mm range, (plus more barrel distortion) its still very good and nice to have it when you need it believe me. I can't believe anyone would consider anything else as a first lens and on a $1000 budget. Its a no-brainer. The 135mm is purely a specialty lens. All primes like the 35mm, 50mm etc are for people who have shot for years and have a developed a specific desire for that particular focal length. Mr.Lange who drops in on this Nikon Forum from time to time is a good example of someone who uses primes frequently.

8ella8 - still I'll stick to what I've wrote before: 16-85 as an all around + 35mm/1.8 (no sens for buying 35/2 if You can get the 35/1.8 with AF-S) - +/- $850, if You manage to extend Your budget a little bit add 70-300/vr - by a little I mean app $300 :) or get the 18-105 instead, and You should be able to fit everything in Your budget.

You mentioned 135mm lens, IMHO it's not a good starting lens as it gives You 200mm alternative on DX crop cameras (d90), it's a moderate telephoto! - way too long for casual style photographer. Also smarterchild and anjz mentioned 50/1.8 - it's a great lens, but on FX on DX it's boring (IMHO), the 35/1.8 will do the job better, and for it's price it's one of the best in the whole Nikon lineup - considering price to quality ratio.

As for KR, You must know that he and his opinion are not among the most popular over here.
If You want creamy pictures, take a look at zeiss glass, they are manual focus lenses.

With the D90 the 16-85 is what I would recomend as well. Its, a wonder of a lens. At 85mm on Dx is preety close to the FOV of the 135mm in film days. Perfect for portraits!
It may even have been designed that way as the bokeh at 85mm is at its best!

Ok 8ella8 then I stand by my original recommendation, the 16-85mm. If all you want is ONE good lens then the 16-85 is the best all round choice. If you don't mind carrying a second lens with you then get the 50mm or 35mm as well for low light photos.

if you were closer to vancouver I am trying to get rid of an 18-55 VR that is sitting in the box had it on my camera maybe 6 times. its a good lens, actually does decent macro shots cause It focuses pretty close. The only reason I dont use it is because I have the 18-200 but it is definitely a sharp lens I think if you got one you'd be very happy with it.

$1000 US lens budget and a D90. I would get a 50 1.4G (around 400USD), probably won't leave your camera and the 18-55 G VR (cheap, good quality and useful) ($180 or so). I have both and that is the perfect combination for photos of my kid, my wife and lots of travel shots. Then, maybe try the Tamron 90 mm 2.8 Macro at a camera shop (never used it but it is on my list of possible next lenses). That lens will run you around 450USD

I started out with a special they had here and got The D90 with the 18-200 lens which I still use a lot. Its great to have on the camera at all times just in case you need to go wide or zoom in a bit. The images are sharp with the right lighting and the VR performance is great. In my bag I carry the 18-200, Sigma 150-500, 50mm 1.4, and a 10.5mm.

these lenses have given me enough flexibility to work with and now Im finally looking at pro glass like the 24-70 and 70-200 but those are double your budget for now and are not necessary to take "good photos"

Niko- Photography background/ few courses at uni (night classes), used to own a canon Dslr and Nikon VERY old slr. Loved it! Want to get back into it after 2 kids and about 5year break. The technology is leaps ahead of when I was taking pics and I'm only 26! oh dear.
my 1000USD budget is for lens only.

go for the kit lens. the 18-105. its perfect. i own the same exact setup.
plus purchase a 50mm 1.4G. on the dx camera itd be about 75mm for you and create that look of a 135 2.0. its an amazing portrait lenses.

8ella8 1600AUS/1000USD is your total budget for camera and lens? Or is it just your budget for the lens? Will this be your first DSLR? What's your photography background?

The 135mm is one of the best lenses for portraits. But if it's going to be your only lens you will be disappointed at all the great wide angle pictures you will miss. The 16-85 is a great all round lens, but it might just be out of your budget if you are including the price of the D90.

If that's the case then I say go with the 18-105mm D90 Kit. Best balance of price, focal range, and image quality.